backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by B2I.. on Aug 17 at 11:03 AM


  (Source: OLED Lab)
The set does not have 4K display technology

A curved TV is not for everyone, but two top South Korean electronics conglomerates are betting some customers will shell out a whole lot of cash for a glorified tech demo of the potential of OLED (organic light emitting diodes).

I. Samsung Strikes Back

You may recall that in OLED's infancy, one key selling point bandied about was the ability to make flexible displays.  But most early OLED panels were rigid traditional form factors -- either acting as device displays or as small television sets.

Both Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) and LG Electronics, Inc. (KSC:066570)  -- the first and second place display sellers worldwide, according to Display Search's March 2013 numbers -- are racing to ramp up production of large OLED TVs and they're offering up early product in a unique curved form factor.

Samsung's unit (the KN55S9C) was late to the game, finally shipping this week.  Customers can order the set from Samsung.com, which is advisable as some resellers are reportedly tacking on thousands to the price.
Samsung curved OLED
Samsung's curved OLED is finally shipping, at a competitive price point.

However, compared to LG's entrant -- which began shipping in limited quantities in May -- the Samsung set is a "bargain".  A 55-inch OLED panel retails for $8,999.99 USD.  By contrast the 55-inch LG set (EA9800) was priced at $14,999.99 USD when it finally hit U.S. retailers such as Best Buy Comp., Inc. (BBYin July, having first shipped in limited quantities in South Korea.

“Better than expected yields" allowed Samsung to undercut LG.  But is there more to the $6,000 USD price disparity?

II. LG Set is Pricier, but Technologically Superior

There is indeed.  The LG set is thinner -- 4.3 mm compared to a "bulky" 12.5 mm for the Samsung set.  It's also lighter.  Samsung's set weighs 32.8 kg (72.3 lb) versus 17.2 kg (37.9 lb) for the LG set.  The LG set's thin and light form factors comes thanks to carbon-fiber body design, but that technology also bumps the unit's price.  

LG's set is thinner, lighter, uses less power, and has less parts.

The disparity doesn't stop there. The LG set also boasts a lower TDP (265 watts vs. 295 watts for the Samsung).  The LG set also is reportedly a much more optimized design [source] with only about a third as many parts, which could spell trouble for Samsung given its past issues with component failures.  About the only win for Samsung is that its display is slightly more sharply curved (4,500R compared to 5,000R). 

However, the Samsung set does boast "SmartTV" technology, including a quad-core ARM processor and eye-aware interaction.

Both OLED panels promise vivid colors and brightness, on top of the unique gimmick of the curved shape.  A major letdown, though, is the lack of 4K display technology in both units -- the latest in high resolution video/content, which roughly quadruples the screen resolution of the 1920x1080 pixel resolution found in the curved units.

U.S. customers are finally getting their first taste of big-screen OLED and curved display technology, which is also expected to hit the smartphone market as early as this holiday season.  The only thing that remains to be seen is whether customers pay substantially (67%) more for the better set (the LG EA9800) or go with the cheaper, but less endowed options (the KN55S9C).

A final note is that the LG unit's prices have trickled down to $13,500 USD in South Korea, and may soon dip to those levels in the U.S. as well.  That's just one more factor to consider if you're contemplating this very pricey purchase.

Source: The Verge



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By EricMartello on 8/17/2013 3:58:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
4K is stupid in a TV, especially a 55" TV. The human eye cannot resolve that much detail at normal sitting distances. 1080p is already retina quality if the user isn't sitting a few feet from the TV.


This place is no longer a tech site if such a moronic comment managed to get upvoted at all...idiots have been saying the same old sh1t since the early days of HDTV and perhaps before:

"You won't see the difference between VHS and SVHS! It's just a gimmick"

"CDs barely sound better than LPs. Don't buy into the hype."

"You won't even notice the difference between regular and HDTV if you have cable. You'd need a 50" TV for it to matter and most people have 19" TVs or smaller..."

'Retina quality' is not a measurement of any kind; it's apple marketing BS that is designed to sell tech crap to people who are really dumb. The improved resolution you will get with 4K video will allow for finer detail on larger screens. 1080P is not nearly "the limit" for human visual acuity on a 50-55" screen.

quote:
Not only that, but there's no 4K content and not even a way to distribute it. 4K only makes sense on extremely large TVs in small spaces, and in projection home theaters but even then there's no actual content for it.


OH NO! Are you saying that there's no content for a format that isn't supported by most TVs on the market? WHAT A SURPRISE! I guess that means there is no way they will be able to produce 4K content in the future...because if it's not available now then it won't ever be.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki